Global Warming: Policy-Driven Deception

[rah]

Warning signs today:


In 2003, extreme heat waves claimed as many as 70,000 lives in Europe. In France alone, nearly 15,000 people died during two weeks of soaring temperatures, which reached as high as 104 degrees Fahrenheit.


Much of North America experienced a severe heat wave in July 2006, which contributed to the deaths of over 140 people, including some who owned working air conditioners.


In the 1995 Chicago heat wave, 739 heat-related deaths occurred in a one-week period.

This year we had a cold winter but when you talk to GW supporters they remind you that it's a single year and just a data point. And we're now calling it climate change.
Based on comments like that, you can't use a single warm year and say the sky is falling and claiming them to be warning signs. Please be consistent.

[DaShi]

I loved it when Jon Stewart and Colbert both pointed out how ridiculous rah's argument is. But it did make me think that they need to collaborate more so they don't rehash the same material.

[rah]

I guess I missed them doing it.
I still see a double standard here. Maybe you could rehash their argument so I could respond to it. Please no video since I have a problem with it at work.

[DaShi]

1. GW supporters don't rely on just a data point. That's what you did to make the stupid claim that they do (pulled out a single part of a single post made here to accuse the entire scientific community).

2. Those are examples of consequences of rapid climate change.

3. You and your Fox News buddies (yes, you have now placed yourself in their camp whether you like it or not) do point to a cold winter or a snow storm and treat it as incontrovertible proof that global warming doesn't occur.

[Theben]

rah's the only "skeptic" here that has made a salient point in this whole thread. I use the word 'skeptic' only b/c I don't know the term for someone who doubts global warming is caused mainly by human activity but isn't bat-**** crazy.

[DaShi]

I don't have the time to look through the whole thread to find it.

[rah]

To point 1.
The article is the one that used the records as a warning. Even if there is GW those extremes will not become the norms. So using those single points is being alarmists.

To point 2.
I'll concede part of that but still see above.

To point 3.
Where did I use a single point to refute it. I was making fun of using a single point on both sides. Especially after it they used it. They make fun of when others do it but seemed more than ready to use it to their advantage.

I actually believe GW is occuring. My issues are the cause and what we should do about it. (but I do believe man is part of the problem )

[DaShi]

To point 1.
The article is the one that used the records as a warning. Even if there is GW those extremes will not become the norms. So using those single points is being alarmists.

Keep moving those goal posts.

[ricketyclik]

This year we had a cold winter but when you talk to GW supporters they remind you that it's a single year and just a data point.

Just as an aside, 2010 does look like it's shaping up to be the warmest on record. If not, then one of the.

And we're now calling it climate change.

This is blatant revisionism. It was Exxon Mobil who introduced that nomenclature in the early 90's to make it seem less threatening, and to assist in the line "but it's always been changing, so what's new?".

[rah]

Hmm, I didn't know the origin of that phrase. I thought it was originated by the GW supporters. If you have a link to any background info on that, I'd be interested in reading it. I do find the extra lines amusing because I've never heard them together.

and dashi, I didn't move the goal post, you just can't read.

[DaShi]

You admitted that those points weren't being to used to prove climate change, which was your original point. Now you're trying to claim that they are being used to prove some other nonesense that not worth discussing. Finally, you just admitted that you haven't a clue what you are talking about.

[Spinko]

Just as an aside, 2010 does look like it's shaping up to be the warmest on record. If not, then one of the.




This is blatant revisionism. It was Exxon Mobil who introduced that nomenclature in the early 90's to make it seem less threatening, and to assist in the line "but it's always been changing, so what's new?".

So when were the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change first created Rick? I'll give you a hint..it wasn't in the nineties.

It's been warm globally so far 2010 as we have had an El Nino, a warming of the Pacific. It has nothing to do with emissions of CO2, which are a beneficial supplementation to the atmosphere allowing plant yields to rise and biomass to bloom at a much faster rate.

[giblets]

It has nothing to do with emissions of CO2,

Why not?

[Berzerker]

I use the word 'skeptic' only b/c I don't know the term for someone who doubts global warming is caused mainly by human activity but isn't bat-**** crazy.

We're repeatedly told temperatures have gone up the last 150 years. But what we're not told is 150 years ago climate was changing from the mini ice age to our modern warming trend. Now maybe thats because the AGW crowd is largely ignorant about that climate change, but what it does mean is that the world saw a natural rebound from a cold swing to a warm period accompanied by increasing industrial gases (which do have effects, both warming and cooling). How much of that increase in temperature (1-2 F?) is due to us is unknown, I'd think its obvious our overall impact was to help warm the world, but we're talking a degree F or less.

getting worked up over that is bat-**** crazy

[Caligastia]

Berz.